So here I am…  Discussing a position about legal rulings.  I am not a lawyer.  I thought about being one.  My dad said I should have been one.

I am not a lawyer.

I took some time to dig into the 10th Amendment.  I have found a glut of information on the subject and wanted to share.

I have received a great deal of contention and support on my last article. I had talked about a few points, but was pounded on my assertion of the 10th Amendment being at the heart of the “healthcare” debate.  I decided it was time to dig in to understand what the 10th Amendment  may mean for this debate in regard to mandated coverage for all.

Simple point of argument…  Mandatory Coverage.  That is all I am looking at. When the federal government dictates to the people that they must purchase insurance or be fined, the Congress has inducted its right using implied powers from the Commerce Clause in the Constitution.

What I found was complicated and at times difficult to understand.  If you are a lawyer or law student and understand this subject-  PLEASE WEIGH IN!

The 10th Amendment and the Commerce Clause

I have learned that there are two areas of consideration.  One is the 10th Amendment; the other is The Commerce Clause in the Constitution.  It was put in to fix issues with the Articles of Confederation.  (Sleepy yet?)

The Commerce Clause states that Congress has the right ”To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes”.

The 10th Amendment states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.”

Got it?  Two different areas of the Constitution.

What Does the Court Say About the Commerce Clause?

The Supreme Court has ruled on the congressional power of interstate commerce regulation repeatedly.  The court has provided multiple rulings that weigh heavily in favor of Congress.  Congress has a right to regulate commerce based on implied powers from the Commerce Clause.  See the Whitepaper linked at the bottom of the post for an in-depth look.

What Does the Court Say About the 10th Amendment?

There is a fantastic article on Jrank.org regarding the history of the 10th Amendment. I urge you all to read it.

Basically, the Court has the opinion that Congress has implied powers to regulate activity.  In a recent opinion form 1985, the Court’s opinion is summarized well by Lawnix:

“In reaching this decision, the Court said that if certain states are worried about the extent of federal authority over a particular local matter, the residents of such states should contact their senators and representatives who are constitutionally authorized to narrow federal regulatory power through appropriate legislation. .”

Basically-  the Court said, “If the people don’t like the law, then vote the bums out ’cause it ‘aint our job to fix bad law”.

The Bottom Line

The Court has had many opinions on the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment.  What will actually decide the merit of the Healthcare bill’s constitutionality is not the Commerce Clause or the 10th Amendment-  it is in some lesser known rulings regarding the ability of Congress to penalize Americans for not following certain legislation.

In regard to the Healthcare penalties for people not carrying insurance,   Congress included updates to the 1986 tax code.  These changes are the foundation for the penalty-  You see it right?  Congress made the penalty … a TAX… Congress may have a way around the issue by hiding behind taxation and not actual federal fines.

So-  it may NOT be the 10th Amendment… Stupid.

10th Amendment and The Commerce Clause

It was only a matter of time before I was compelled to open my mouth about politics.  The more I study leadership-  the more I find I need to reflect on people like Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln- Politicians.  I am going to weigh in on the healthcare bill.

The Actual Problem-

THIS IS NOT ABOUT HEALTHCARE.   I realize that up to this point it would seem that there has been total focus on “healthcare”.   This is not the case-  What I and almost all conservatives are frustrated with is the apparent lack of respect for the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 10th Amendment is the meat of this debate.

The 10th Amendment

The 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Nowhere does the Constitution grant rights to the federal government to MANDATE insurance or any other product/service.  The power of free choice is guaranteed by the Constitution. The federal government forcing the American people to do anything is not allowed because the power to do so is NOT in the Constitution.  Therefore –  this is a state rights issue.

The debate is being made by many that the issue is not with reforming healthcare, but the manner it is being performed.  This congress has made many people mad about their very loose interpretation of the Constitution. Chuck Norris is one of those people and is VERY angry.  See his article on the subject where he tells congress there is a “coming storm”.  He is not the only one.

Tyranny and Jefferson

What I have a problem with is that the federal government has decided that it knows better than individuals and states how to run people’s lives.  That is plain and simple.  This is tyranny.  Disagree??

Webster’s Dictionary defines Tyranny as:  1 : oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man —Thomas Jefferson>;especially : oppressive power exerted by government

For the federal government to tell me that I MUST buy insurance is oppressive power. The founding fathers would be sick to see what is happening.

“Jefferson aimed at laissez-faire liberalism in the name of individual freedom, He felt that any form of government control, not only of religion, but of individual mercantilism consisted of tyranny.” Quoted from Jim Walker

Check out this excerpt from Jefferson’s first inaugural address in 1801: “a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities,”

Socialism in the Bill?

Now let’s look at something from the actual bill- a FEDERAL BILL that is about to become law:

“TITLE IV–AMENDMENTS TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986

Subtitle A–Shared Responsibility

Part 1–Individual Responsibility

Sec. 401. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage”

Notice SUBTITLE A-  ”Shared Responsibility”  Sound familiar?  This is socialism.

According to SharedProsperity.org, a new “social contract” from government should be enacted.  What is SharedProsperity.org? This is an offshoot of the Economic Policy Institute whose former Living Standards director, JARED BERNSTEIN,  is now Chief Economist and Economic Policy Advisor for Vice President Joe Biden.  So there are ties to this administration.

See this quote from the Shared Prosperity mission:  ”Building this new social contract requires a re-examination of the roles of government, corporations, and unions in our society. The social contract that grew out of the New Deal and served the economy and society well for three decades following World War II evolved out of on-going and mutually beneficial negotiations and problem solving between leading corporations and labor unions, with government playing a key mediating, facilitating, and regulating role.”

Hmmm…. government in a regulating role…  not very Jeffersonian.

Pelosi is an Ass Clown

Educational Loan Reform in a Healthcare Bill?

OH!  Did anyone EVEN talk about this except for Beck?

According to this quote by the  House Committee on Education and Labor-  The “Healthcare” bill “offers the most sweeping changes to the federal student loan program in a generation,” said Miller, who unveiled the details of the package this morning.  “This is really about making a simple choice. Congress can either continue the longstanding boondoggle that rewards banks with tens of billions of dollars in subsidies at the expense of families and taxpayers – or we can invest that money directly in students and America’s world economic leadership.”

After I have researched this topic-  I am not crying ’1984′-  but I do have concerns.  These two articles spell it our pretty well and I would encourage you to read them:

Glenn Beck Does Not Understand Student Loans

Dick Morris- Obama is Right

So here is my concern regarding the education part of this bill-  Private institutions are looking to make money and have NO political agenda.  Since they have an interest in interfacing with the student to collect payment and make money doing it-  they actually try to compete as a free market option. (great service, web options, organized management of accounts)   Once the government takes over,  students have to go to a bureaucrat to get a federal loan.

Not to mention that the government can push an agenda like limiting loans to certain universities or students based on desired study… With no other option than private loans the government gets to push an agenda by default because private loans cannot compete with the federal money.

Solution-  we all get out of stupid consumer debt and pay cash for our education.

Bottom Line

There are many issues I have with this bill-  none of them are directly attributed with helping to reform healthcare.  Not that I agree with all the aspects of the healthcare reform in the bill-  I have not have time to sift through the hundreds of pages in the bill, but will begin to try.  Now that it has passed we all get to see what’s in it according to this video clip of Pelosi:

Pelosi: \”We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It\”

As if transparency required a vote on the House Floor.   Whatever happened to “By the People, For the People”?